Akin a Microcosm of the Country

Todd Akin, as most people are aware, stepped in it pretty deep last weekend when, in the midst of an abortion discussion during an interview on Fox2's JACO Report, claimed that a woman's body has a mechanism for shutting down pregnancy during a "legitimate" rape.  For those who may have missed it, here is the short clip from YouTube:

Akin has been publicly eviscerated and flogged so many ways, it's bordering on sketch comedy at this point.  He's sworn to stay in the Senate race, despite the entire Republican Party and their presidential and vice presidential nominees making it known they want him gone.

It can be debated ad nauseum whether or not what he said is true.  He did say that he misspoke in using the term "legitimate," when he meant to say "forcible."  Even that drew contempt, as if he was implying that there is any rape that isn't "forcible."  For the record, there is - and the FBI has been using the term for decades - "statutory."  And they are the only two types of rape on the legal books.

There is also a basis for the comment, highlighted in a Tim Townsend article in USA Today, in which Townsend references the origin of the argument being made: a 1972 article by Dr, Fred Mecklenburg, where the doctor said that rape pregnancy was rare, and then listed several reasons why that appeared to be the case, including the hypothesis that trauma will prevent a woman from ovulating, even when she is scheduled to.  There is widespread debate, and doubt, in the medical establishment as to the veracity of such a comment, but it has been the fuel for arguments like Akin's ever since.

I can believe logically that trauma affects functions of the body, especially since trauma tends to affect the brain first, and most.  Ovulation is the result of of hormones being released in the brain that causes the ovary to release an egg.  It wouldn't be hard to imagine that extreme trauma could prevent that from happening.  Women do that exact thing with birth control pills every morning - surely it's not so out there to think that other influences in the extreme could do the same thing.  But I don't subscribe to this line of thinking, first because it's extremely difficult to define and prove, and second, the fact that it's estimated in Townsend's article that rape could be resulting in 32,000 pregnancies per year kind of shoots the "rarity" claim in the foot.  No matter how you try to delineate it, 32,000 is a lot of rape babies.

I don't have a problem with Akin making the statement.  Politicians always try to find a justifiable reason to make their argument true - appealing to the science (despite a lack of) is just one more way to sound relevant while saying nothing constructive.  My main problem was with what he said next: that "the punishment ought to be on the rapist, and not attacking the child."  While I agree with the sentiment, I noticed he never mentioned the woman.  Why is that?  The woman isn't being punished with a life long reminder of her rapist if she gets pregnant?  Why is the woman always left out of the conversation on abortion, except to call her a baby killer?  The continued treatment of women as simply the birthing unit has really started to get on my nerves, and comments like the rape debate drives that frustration home.  And my other problem is the lapse in logic - even if everything he said were 100% true, how does that give anyone the right to legally dictate what a woman can or cannot do with her body in regards to pregnancy?

This got me to thinking.  Why not mandate that all rapists be castrated?  You get convicted of rape, we remove your testicles and penis, insert a catheter into the bladder to urinate, and you no longer have genitalia for the rest of your life.  How would that go over, I wonder?  Probably not well, since the majority of lawmakers are men - and there's just no getting around the unwanted squeamish feeling of empathy.  And the "rights to your own fully functioning body" debate would ensue.  The government doesn't have the right to force an action onto a human body.  The implications of this could be extrapolated to the death penalty as well, but the person not surviving the assault on his body during execution would probably make the "rights" issue moot.

As we can all likely agree that forced castration would probably never happen here, it leads me back around to women.  Forcing a woman to accept an imposition on her body is no different than forcing a rapist to accept an imposition on his body.  There is a difference, actually - the woman isn't a criminal.  And if the pregnancy is a result of rape, the imposition is exponentially compounded.  I just don't see how anyone gets around that simple fact.  I get that a fetus has no control over how it came into being, and I would never minimize that fact - but how do we leave women out of the equation, and then just expect them to act like grown ups, take it on the chin, and suck it up when we treat them like children who need to be told what they will and won't do with their bodies?  And that's exactly what we would be doing if Roe v. Wade were ever repealed.

Mr. Akin, a word of advice:  Better to be silent, and thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove any doubt.

The Voter ID Farce

So the ballot initiatives for Voter ID has simply exploded in the politisphere lately, with supporters claiming a desire to keep illegals from voting, and critics claiming that the supporters are racist and trying to disenfranchise and suppress the vote of poor blacks, Hispanics and elderly people - the logic being that they are less likely to endure the hardship of riding buses, taxicabs, waiting in long lines, etc. to get to ID locations, when there is limited need for them to have one.  I'm thinking both sides are a bit full of it, to varying degree.  But first and foremost, let's accept that ID is required for almost everything we do anymore:

Social Security, Airports, DMV, Hospitals, Doctor's offices, Pharmacies, Jails, Court, Pawn Shops, Credit Card use, Check use, Adoptions, Blood Donation, Guns, Insurance, any phone call you ever make about an account of any kind.  Welfare, Food Stamps, and Medicaid all require ID.  ID is required for virtually everything. 

And statistically, the poor are the least likely to vote (in USA, we average 36.4%).  The numbers go up as income increases.  Education shows similar effect.  So what's to suppress?  They don't need ID for something they don't participate in, yes? 

I think the voter purging in Florida is complete garbage, and any Miamian knows, illegals go out of their way to avoid government.  This is why they've had almost no success finding illegals voting in Florida - THEY'RE NOT REGISTERED.  It's getting so deep in Rick Scott's office, you need hip boots and a bottle of Febreeze to keep the stink off of you.

Most of us should recognize that photo IDs are the most secure form of ID, since all other forms simply require information to fake.  There's a reason the REAL ID requirements were enacted, and I am of the opinion that everyone should have a photo ID, period.  And from a voting standpoint, if everyone has one, there's nothing to suppress, yes?

So if the problem is simply getting people to the places that issue photo IDs, I have a solution:  why not start issuing IDs in places that the poor would frequent... say, Welfare offices?  Most of the poor are on assistance of some kind.  They already have the documents in hand, because they have to if they're not using a photo ID to get benefits.  The benefits agent, upon verifying their documents for Welfare eligibility, has a webcam at their desk.  They take a photo, the photo ID is printed out at a central printer in the office by the time the lengthy benefits process is over with.  The ID information is forwarded to the state at the same time the benefits processing is (by way of their respective departments' secure web address).  Two birds, one stone.

This could also be accomplished in places where identification verification is required - like employers.  Every employer is required to file employment eligibility forms at the same time they file W-4s when they hire people.  Standard verification is a photo ID and a SS card (or green card), with other verification options if photo ID isn't available.  Once again, webcam - cheap, easy.  Take a picture, send it with the verification form.  State issues a photo ID, mails it to the employer within a couple of weeks, employee gets it with the next paycheck..  Not altogether different than getting a passport.  Two birds, one stone.

For the elderly, how about the doctor's office?  If their Medicare card legally verifies their ID as far as the feds are concerned, then it's simply a matter of obtaining a photo (webcam...) and submitting paperwork (done electronically these days, so no real hardship on the doctors' offices), state mails the ID to the home address, not unlike they do now for renewing drivers' licenses.  Two birds, one stone.

These cover the most likely scenarios for virtually everyone.  If they work, they can get ID through their employer.  If they don't, they're most likely on some kind of assistance, and they can get ID  at the same time they apply for benefits.  Elderly can use the other two options or their Medicare provider.  With almost everything being done on computers and internet, there's simply no reason an easier means of acquiring photo ID can't be accomplished.  Welfare offices are a state agency, so the same system security is available as at the DMV.  If employers are found to be misusing the system for fraud IDs, their occupational license is revoked, and any IDs applied for by the employer are re-verified for accuracy and validity, either through current employers or the Welfare office, if they are on assistance.  Same can apply for doctors' offices.

This is not a perfect solution, but it's an option.  It's certainly better than complaining that poor minorities might have to take a bus and stand in line.  Really?  That's the argument?  So any suggestion of utilizing a more secure form of ID besides a library card and a utility bill, and requiring it to vote, is simply racist and an attempt to suppress voter turnout?  The intellectual laziness is staggering...

I don't think voter fraud (at the polls, anyway) is a huge problem.  If photo IDs can cut down on the dead votes and double voting, great.  Not too worried about illegal immigrants - they pretty much avoid anything governmental the best they can anyway, so they're not showing up in voting booths, I don't care how hard you argue that - it's sounds ridiculous (because it is).  But identification security has become an increasing important issue, and has to be addressed.  Photo ID is the most efficient way to do it. 

And if everyone has one, then requiring it to vote, along with the myriad of other things we need ID for, is no big deal.

A Man's Take on Birth Control

Couple of things on birth control... 

While I am not a fan of the Affordable Care Act in general, the contraception mandate is very low down the list of aspects that bother me about ACA.  But since people have made a pretty large mountain from a relatively small molehill, allow me to inject a tiny bit of reality amidst the hype:

1.  One of the things that drive me crazy is people shouting without knowledge - or worse, in spite of it.  One of the most common rants I see and hear is the seeming belief by the religious (generally Christians) that they can't stop themselves from espousing in public:  that birth control kills potential babies.  Wow, I'm not sure people could be more wrong.  Ovulation is predicated upon a spike in estrogen levels mid-cycle, that activates the pituitary gland to release hormones that cause the ovary to release an egg.  Birth control stabilizes the estrogen levels to prevent the spike and, as a result, the pituitary gland never has the chance to cause the ovary to release an egg.  Everybody understand that last part?  The egg never releases.  Read that sentence again, it's pretty important.  No potential life is killed.  The egg is still right there, in the ovary, and can still be released at a later date when the woman stops the birth control.  The potential life is still there.  That's a whopper of a piece of information to not know, or get completely wrong, when you are brow-beating women on "ethical" grounds, over deciding to use contraception.

2.  Birth control helps women on numerous levels that have nothing to do with pregnancy, including consistently regulating and lessening the intensity (cramping) of menstruation, as well as minimizing the frequency of heavy bleeds.  It also significantly reduces the chances of developing ovarian cysts and cancer, endometriosis, and pelvic inflammatory disease (PID).  As often as not, women are prescribed contraception for these reasons alone.  This is no small point, since Viagra was designed for cardiac patients' regulation of heart valves - the point being, don't scoff at a drug simply because of one aspect you find questionable, when there are larger benefits involved.

3.  The only thing the religious hate more than contraception is abortion.  Well, if  woman can postpone pregnancy for a while (I reiterate, the eggs are still there for later use), elective abortion numbers will drop like a rock.  One would think that would be highly pleasing to those so adamantly against it, yes?  So please - try to see the forest from the trees.  With contraception, you postpone life, which vastly reduces the elimination of it after conception through abortion - a larger victory, maybe?

4.  Now for the financial aspect:  taxes will not go up as a result of this mandate... I repeat, taxes will not go up - insurance premiums will.  Now, before people blow their wads, pay attention to the estimated increase - the average increase will be $21.40 per person, per year.  That comes to $1.78/month, or for those of you on bi-weekly paychecks, 89 cents per pay period.  And the mandate doesn't just cover contraception.  It also covers domestic violence screening and counseling, breastfeeding supplies and annual preventive care, such as pap smears and pelvic exams.  The contraception and preventative care alone would reduce health costs over the long term, which could in turn reduce premiums.  Don't be short-sighted and frustrated - see the bigger long term picture.

I find it interesting that the people that bloviate the most about this stuff tend to be the same people who bloviate the most about their freedoms being derailed.  Well here you go.  You may not agree with the goals of the contraception mandate, but you still have the freedom to choose not to utilize whatever you don't want to.  And while you all have your panties in a twist about it, just remember that it could always be worse:  We could be China, murdering babies based on the gender and number of children in the family...

A Word on Chick-Fil-A...

I would like to take a moment to explain something about business, politics, and beliefs.  I recently had a harsh reaction to the CEO of Chick-Fil-A voicing his opinion on marriage in an interview with the Baptist Press:

"We are very much supportive of the family -- the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that.

"We operate as a family business ... our restaurants are typically led by families; some are single. We want to do anything we possibly can to strengthen families. We are very much committed to that," Cathy emphasized.

"We intend to stay the course," he said. "We know that it might not be popular with everyone, but thank the Lord, we live in a country where we can share our values and operate on biblical principles."


In any other situation, I would agree with the majority of his comments, and I have been taken to task a bit for holding the company's beliefs against them - that they should be free to think and believe whatever they want, as long as, in the operation of their business, they treat their customers fairly and with respect - and admittedly, the company has a reputation for stellar customer service, regardless of race, gender, ethnicity, disability, and yes, sexual orientation.  I have also read columns denouncing boycotts of the company because Cathy never specifically says that he and/or the company are against gays, an argument I flatly disagree with.

A company CEO is not unlike the President of the United States - they are the face of the organization and tend to be experienced public speakers, keenly aware of the effect of publicity, both positive and negative.  They know how to say something without actually saying it.  When that person uses the phrase "the biblical definition of the family unit," as part of his beliefs, he is very specifically referring to gays in the negative, without voicing it specifically.  They can try to wave the "plausible deniability" flag, but there's simply no other implication that can be drawn from that.

And the thing is, I don't care that he's against gays.  He's one of millions.  He's free to think whatever he wants.  And if he kept it in his own house, I wouldn't have a problem with continuing to buy his food.  Here's where he lost me, and please make note of this, as it's the one context so often overlooked:

Chick-fil-A's WinShape Foundation gave $2 million to anti-gay organizations in 2010 (the most current year I've seen numbers for), most notably the Marriage & Family Foundation, Exodus International  and the Family Research Council, in a report issued by Equality Matters.  And David Badash of the New Civil Rights Movement reported that Chick-fil-A has donated an estimated $5 million to anti-gay organizations and hate groups between 2003 and 2010.

So what is really being said, without being "said," is that, while they are against gays and gay marriage, they are in full support of receiving gays' business.  And by releasing their charitable contributions, which detail the groups above, they are making it very clear that YOU and I are contributing to those organizations, through the purchase of their product - essentially saying that we fully support their efforts to ban gay marriage.  We didn't used to know this, but now that we do, I've made the conscious decision to no longer pad the coffers that they tap into to provide financial support to anti-gay organizations.  I've made this decision for me - everyone else is free to make their own decisions, and I don't hold them against anyone.  But having a lot of gay friends I care very much for, I simply can't give my money to them anymore.

So a business' beliefs and politics don't always overlap, and if they don't, no harm, no foul.  But when it's found to be funding politics and beliefs, you have to decide for yourselves if you want to be a part of their endeavors.  Jim Henson's company famously ended their business relationship with Chick-Fil-A, no longer providing the toys for the restaurant's kids' meals.  In response to that decision, someone visiting a Chick-Fil-A store recently posted this photo on a Wipe Out Homophobia page on Facebook:

Makes you wonder just how proud they are of those beliefs, or only insofar as it negatively impacts their business - then they simply trash another company with lies.  Interesting logic:  they want US to allow them their beliefs, but Henson's company gets trashed for doing the same.  Nice to see their business ethics on display.  Wonder what part of the Bible THAT came from...

What's That Smell?

So the Supreme Court upheld the Affordable Care Act, popularly known as ObamaCare, 5-4, with Chief Justice John Roberts the deciding vote.  Obviously, the Democrats are largely cheering, the Republicans are largely booing, and the independents are deciding if they are going to vote for Obama in November (remember, this bill has had upwards of 70% of the country against it, and the independents are crucial for Obama’s re-election – so Obama may have just screwed himself with this victory he’s basking in right now). 

*Full Disclosure:  I have a financial consultant father, whose business was partly built on group health insurance.  So from a personal standpoint, my parents’ financial future going into their retirement years – which is negatively affected with every step closer we get to universal health care - is important to me.*

While this family concern matters, it doesn’t really play that big of a part in why I don’t like the bill.  I was wary of the bill right from the beginning, largely because it was thrown together very quickly, no one in Congress even read the bill (at 2700 pages, who could have?), and the administration itself didn’t know what was in it.  Many will remember that this is when Nancy Pelosi famously said, “We need to pass the bill, so that we can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy,” securing her position as one of the more prolific blowhards in American politics.  Apparently, it wasn’t important to make the American public knowledgeable about the bill – you know – to minimize that controversy, maybe?  Just pass the thing – we’ll tell you all about the ramifications later.  The level of arrogance was astounding, even by politicians’ standards.  The smell of BS just saturates…

So the critical issue for the Supremes to decide on was the Individual Mandate.  For anyone not up to speed, the Individual Mandate would require, as of 2014, anyone who does not have health insurance to buy some, through their employer (if available), or on their own through insurance exchanges (if established in time – unlikely, according to several states).  If you refuse to purchase insurance, you will be assessed a fine on your annual tax return, which can vary from $0 (under $9500 in income) to $4700 (over $200,000 in income) – PER PERSON (up to 3 people per household).

Now, here’s the legal rub that’s gotten everyone in a tizzy:  The Individual Mandate is not, and never was, a tax.  Obama and his administration swore up and down, over and over, that it was a penalty, not a tax.  And does anyone remember why they were so adamant that it wasn’t a tax?  Back when the bill was being debated in Congress, there were rumors going around that Obama wanted to include jail time as a possible penalty for non-compliance.  When asked, he said that it was mentioned as an idea, but never seriously discussed.  Then portions of the bill were being leaked, and one of the leaks involved the penalty being applied to our taxes, and that some 16,000 IRS agents would have to be hired to deal with compliance.  This had everyone in an uproar – that Obama really was going to put people in jail, but was going to do it through the back door, aka “tax evasion,” charged on anyone refusing to pay the penalty.  To quell the brewing firestorm, Obama mounted a campaign of denying that the penalty was a tax, and that tax evasion jail time was not going to be a punishing tactic.

But then the administration got it's rear handed to them by the Supremes on the Commerce Clause issue.  They only called it a tax because that's the only way it would be considered, rather than thrown out.  Once they start losing their shirts... then it's a tax.  Apparently, truth only really matters when the agenda isn't at risk, yes?

They got so wrapped up in winning the argument with the Supremes, they didn't bother to notice that, even if they did present the case as a tax, the tax would be illegal.  There are only three types of federal taxes:  Income, Excise, and Direct. 

Income is based on income, naturally (IM has nothing to do with income).
Excise is based on selected types of transactions (also sometimes referred to as an “event tax”), collected by the producer or retailer.  At the federal level, excise taxes are usually uniform – fuel, alcohol, tobacco, and firearms are the exceptions that vary by state..  (IM is based on the LACK of a transaction, and the penalty varies based on regional location).
Direct is applied to persons and/or ownership of property, and is apportioned to each state based on population (IM involves no ownership of property, and is apportioned to the INDIVIDUAL, regardless of population).

Even John Roberts said in his opinion, ”A tax on going without health insurance does not fall within any recognized category of direct tax.”  So this would lead to the obvious question:  What kind of tax is it, since you've deemed it constitutional?  But as I described above, there is no tax that this mandate would apply under.  So if it is a tax, it's an illegal one.  And by the by, according to the rules of taxation in Congress, taxes can only originate in the House of Representatives.  As they only called it a tax out of thin air recently to get it upheld by the Supremes, there's no way this tax would be constitutional.  Which leaves Roberts' opinion severely lacking, and it has engaged the Supreme Court in re-writing a statute's verbage in order to uphold it, which is outside their scope.  They are only to judge based on the argument presented as written.  Changed arguments usually are denounced by the court.

But that's just semantics.  The administration wasn't concerned about legal, or fact - just about winning.  And the Supreme Court has once again insulted our intelligence (Citizens United and Scalia's opinion on immigration are other recent slaps to the face), playing politics instead correctly interpreting and applying the law, further tarnishing the integrity of the court.  The big winner in this isn't Obama or health care - it's John Roberts, who, with very deft political maneuvering, has essentially seized control of the Supreme Court for the foreseeable future.  Siding with the opposition has rendered him "beyond reproach," claims of partiality and partisanship won't stick to him anymore - leaving him as the only member of the court with any perception of credibility.  The fact that he has positioned himself so advantageously while utilizing a complete lapse in logic to contradict his own argument, and then upholding the bill anyway, means he’s either a level of genius that we just can’t comprehend, or he really doesn’t hold our intelligence in much regard.  His little game will help the conservatives in the future, but right now, it just leaves a sour taste in the mouth...

2012 NBA Finals One of the Best in Years

I am so happy for the Heat, and I was so impressed with how many supporting players had big games in these playoffs:

Shane Battier: was huge in several games, not just because of his 3-ball (which I loved how accurate he was, despite the rapid-fire release he has - the definition of a "feel shooter."), but because of his energy and defense.  Being a Miami boy, I was never a Duke or UNC fan, but I was always impressed with the talent pool they accumulated.  Battier is one of Duke's best all-time players, and I am pleased when the all around good guy players in the NBA get their just deserves.  I've always wished another Duke all time great alum, Grant Hill, would get that chance as well.

Mario Chalmers:  I know he has a lot of haters, especially within the local fan base, but I have liked this guy ever since he took over the championship game when he was at Kentucky.  That's when you know someone is a winner.  As a point guard, Chalmers has been spotty for the Heat because he was young and learning (it's tough to be the play maker/creator, and then go to a team that already has that and still be expected to play your game - how do you do that when Wade plays your game too?) Then the last couple of years it got stranger, because Lebron is like Wade - how does a guy like Chalmers - The Man on any other team - make yet another adjustment to his game to accommodate a second star play maker?  I think Mario was unjustly ridiculed for the inconsistency that was bound to happen, considering the responsibility he was assuming.  But the winner in a player never goes away, and when an opportunity arises, the winner will take over.  And boy did Chalmers the winner flex his muscles in Game 4.  What a thunderous (pun intended) punch to the throat he threw down!  I was so proud of him.  I really hope the Heat keep this guy - he has more than proved his worth, and what an exclamation point to that statement made on the grandest stage in basketball.  Kudos Mario!

Norris Cole:  Not many opportunities, but he never squandered them.  He was high energy, got steals, great passing, and drilled some timely threes when OKC forgot where he was and left him open.  Awesome learning experience for him, and he didn't shy away from the Finals pressure (which would have been understandable from a rookie).  His maturity from 4 years of college is a major plus for the Heat, and he really came through for them, even in things as simple as managing the game efficiently and protecting the ball on offense while the stars were on the bench.  The trust Spoelstra showed in him at a few critical points (rookies rarely get that) was huge.  What a confidence booster for a guy expected to be a solid contributor in the years ahead.  Great job, Rook!

Udonis Haslem:  He took less money to stay with the Heat, and then took a supporting role to allow Bosh into the mix.  It cost him playing time, and the lowest stats in his career.  Sacrifice all the way around.  But how do you say no to three guys who gave up millions of dollars to ensure financially that you can stay?  There's real love between Haslem and Wade, never more apparent than his taking a suspension for a viscous hit, defending Wade being roughed up in the Indiana series.  He was happy to do it, and would do it over and over if he had to - he said as much after learning of the punishment.  Said it with extreme pride, actually.  Lebron said that was the perfect example of why his respect for Haslem was enormous, and he was glad that Wade talked him into giving up money to keep him - best money he never got.  But Haslem played his part in these playoffs, and in the Finals, superbly.  Massive defensive force, and even got some of his shooting touch back.  After being injured last year, and struggling for consistency this year, it was great to see him get it going a little.

Mike Miller:  Argh!  Poor MM.  How many times can fate and bad luck kick a guy in the groin?  From the worry about his child to the incessant injuries, I can imagine running face first through plate glass with no helmet would be a welcome and less painful distraction.  But, like Chalmers, MM has always been a winner, and he's been one of the top 3-point shooters in the league for years.  If you've never had severe back pain, you'll never know just how great a performance MM had in Game 5.  Every time he shot, I knew exactly when the pinch of the pain was hitting him - I've felt it myself before.  And the abandon that he played with just screamed of a guy not sure of his future - this injury could end his career - he clearly said "I'm fighting until my back gives out, whatever happens, happens..."  I'm so glad his back held up long enough (thanks to the adrenaline, probably) to allow him to shine once more.  What a time to get the touch and feel of your shot going!  I hope his career can continue, but if not, I'd just like to say that - even though he's a Gator - Mike Miller has always been one of my favorite players, and I wish him and his family the best.  What a great retirement present to earn yourself...

I am proud of Wade, Bosh and Lebron.  Lebron never deserved the ridicule - he's young, he made a mistake with The Decision - but he's always seemed like a pretty humble guy, who does a mountain of charity work (even The Decision raised a fortune for the Boys and Girls Club).  And he's always been one of the best all-around players skill wise.  He needed a team that could support his game, and after 7 seasons, he decided that Cleveland wasn't it.  Dan Gilbert could have fixed that, but he didn't.  I'm glad the Heat had what he needed (Riley has secured his place among the greatest executives in the league's history).  But Wade is the soul of the Heat, he leads the team in the direction it goes.  He did it in 2010 to get this team together (especially finding a way to financially keep Haslem), and Lebron couldn't have had the freedom to take over the team if Wade hadn't relinquished his grip on it.  And the rest of the players followed his lead.  These guys all show what sacrifice is, and teams like the Knicks should pay attention (eyes and ears open, Carmelo).  They may have gotten ridiculed for how they came together, but it was with a goal and a singular focus in mind - and every member of the team bought into it.

And major kudos to the Oklahoma City Thunder.  This is a supremely talented team, just a little too young still (frustration, causing a lack of defensive focus, was a major downfall for them, never more obvious than Game 5 - that comes with maturity).  But their stars and role players are fantastic.  Durant may end up being the best pure shooter ever, and Westbrook looks like a 23 year old Wade - his speed on the court is really something to see.  And Darden is Anthony Mason/Charles Oakley tough.  What a competitor he is.  But overall, mad respect to a group of youngsters who made the Finals one of the most fun to watch in years.  They will be back several more times, I think, if the team stays together long enough.  And I do think they will win eventually, probably sooner than later.  I hope the Heat can prevent it for a few more years, though. 

Obama, the Republican Darling

I have been combing the news outlets and political blogs recently, trying to gauge the likelihood of Obama winning a second term as President.  I have been convinced for a while that he probably won't win, mostly because I don't think he can be victorious running as a Republican - which, if we are all honest with ourselves, is the only way he could be considered true to his first term record.

When he won in 2008 on the ridiculous "Hope and Change" platform, he grandstanded spectacularly on all the things he would do different than the previous administration.  He had press conferences vilifying the Bush administration while posturing his own as the antidote to it.  And everything was Bush's fault - he inherited all this.  And it was easy enough to dismiss - the inevitable lowering of the bar before any of his decisions and policies have taken hold.  But now that he's in full campaign mode again, the "lay-it-all-at-the-feet-of-Bush" tactic is really grating on me.  He's three and a half years in - when does this become his responsibility?  Bush has been gone for quite a while now.  He has no vote in Congress.  He has no say in anything anymore.  But Obama and the DNC seriously want us to believe that his hands are completely tied by Bush.  Just how far do they think they can extend this blame?

• Bush broke Obama’s promise to put all bills on the White House web site for five days before signing them.
• He broke Obama’s promise to have the congressional health care negotiations broadcast live on C-SPAN.
• He broke Obama’s promise to end earmarks.
• He broke Obama’s promise to keep unemployment under 8 percent - that's why he needed his stimulus bill passed, like, tomorrow - or we're all doomed.
• He broke Obama’s promise to close the detention center at Guantanamo in the first year.
• He broke Obama’s promise to make peace with direct, no pre-condition talks with America ’s most hate-filled enemies during his first year in office, ushering in a new era of global cooperation.
• He broke Obama’s promise to end the hiring of former lobbyists into high White House jobs.
• He broke Obama’s promise to end no-compete contracts with the government.
• He broke Obama’s promise to disclose the names of all attendees at closed White House meetings.
• He broke Obama’s promise for a new era of bipartisan cooperation in all matters.

Yes, it’s all George Bush’s fault. President Obama is nothing more than a puppet in the never-ending, failed Bush administration.  Clearly Bush's hand was the reason Obama disengaged himself from the debt ceiling negotiations.  Bush's hand was the reason Obama disengaged himself from even commenting, let alone doing anything, during the Gulf oil spill crisis.  Bush's hand was the reason Obama disengaged himself from the crisis in Libya and went to South America, only to finally make a decision to act when the UN left him with no other choice.  If only George Bush wasn’t still in charge, all of President Obama’s problems would be solved. His promises would have been kept, the economy would be back on track, Iran would have stopped its work on developing a nuclear bomb and would be negotiating a peace treaty with Israel.  North Korea would have ended its tyrannical regime, and integrity would have been restored to the federal government.  Oh, and let's not forget what it would be like if the Democrats, under the leadership of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, if they didn’t have the heavy yoke of George Bush around their necks.  There would be no earmarks, no closed-door drafting of bills, no increase in deficit spending, no special-interest influence (unions).  If only George Bush wasn’t still in charge, we’d have real change by now.  All the broken promises, all the failed legislation and delay (health care reform, immigration reform) is not President Obama’s fault or the fault of the Democrat-controlled Senate or Republican-controlled House.  It’s all George Bush’s fault. 

You might recall that when Scott Brown won election to the U.S. Senate from Massachusetts , capturing Ted Kennedy's seat, President Obama said that Brown’s victory was the result of the same voter anger that propelled Obama into office in 2008.  People were still angry about George Bush and the policies of the past 10 years, and they wanted change.  Yes - according to the president, the argument could be made that the voter rebellion in Massachusetts was George Bush’s fault (it couldn't possibly be that even the Democrat voters were getting a little tired of the Dems legislating against the will of the people).  Therefore, in obvious retaliation, they elected a Republican to the Ted Kennedy seat, ending a half-century of domination by Democrats.  It is all George Bush’s fault.  Will the failed administration of George Bush ever end, and the time for hope and change ever arrive?  Will President Obama ever accept responsibility for something - anything, besides killing Bin Laden and a health care bill he considers a major victory, but likely to be dismantled by the Supremes next month?

The debt crisis is looming over our heads, and the DNC loves to point out that Bush "doubled" the debt from $5 trillion to almost $10 trillion, while Obama has only increased the debt by half, from $10 trillion to almost $16 trillion by the end of the year.  Yet, they miss the point.  Percentagesaside, Bush added $5 trillion to the debt (a huge chunk of which is the wars and the rebuilding in Iraq and Afghanistan) over 8 years.  Obama has added almost $6 trillion in half the time.  By the end of a second term, Obama's administration will have at least doubled the debt to $20 trillion, if not more, at the current rate.

I'm not advising anyone to not vote for Obama.  Just see the forest from the trees, please.  Years back, I joined an electrical contracting firm as a project manager.  I spent my first week going from job site to job site, being brought up to speed with all the projects going on.  Part of my job was to ensure all inspections were passed (several jobs were having problems).  It was pointed out on a particular job that helpers were doing to majority of the work (for those who don't know, helpers usually assist journeyman electricians in completing their work, but it's the journeymen who actually perform the work).  For every failed inspection, there were journeymen blaming sub-par work or unmet electrical code requirements on the helpers.  The owner would visit job sites once every three weeks to a month as a matter of course.  On the Friday of my first week, he brings out paychecks to this particular job site, who had failed yet another inspection two days before (this job was one of the ones I was appointed to, to help bring them up to spec to pass inspections on the next round).  The owner says hello to everyone and has the job foreman hand out the paychecks.  He then informs the job site that the foreman and all the journeymen were fired - right then, right there - done.  Everyone was shocked, including me.  He states that in seven failed inspections, he's heard all the blame has been put on the helpers - which leads him to assume that the helpers are the only ones doing any work.  So why is he paying journeymen $20+/hour to not work, and a foreman $65,000/year + bonuses to oversee them not working?  So everyone was fired, except the helpers.  Ballsiest thing I've ever seen an owner do.

My point is this:  if everything is Bush's fault, what the hell do we need Obama for?